Skip to main content
8:00 pm
♪ ♪ ♪ ♪
8:01 pm
next retell the story of the
8:02 pm
missing daughter who was later found dead. they talked about how they felt when they first heard that their daughter's voice mail was attacked by someone in the british press. they testified last month before the sutphen panel commissioned headed by board justice listen. it's investigating the use of the phone hacking by british media. >> before you begin to hear the evidence i think it has been termed with the victims may i just say a few words. we do think it is important that we those who are here and those who will watch the proceedings clearly understand the procedure which the inquiry has laid down as being appropriate for this evidence under the inquiries's fact. we of course of the others have seen the witness statements of
8:03 pm
those who are going to be called this week and next week and it is right to say that in some of them there is varying degrees of criticism of sections of the press and on occasions of individual journalists, and of course that is why they are here to give evidence to you. and what i am about to say very briefly, may i say that i'm not including in this the dowler family in any sense. but we do believe for the criticism is made especially of individuals and if it is our belief that the criticism is incorrect or for whatever reason false, that, in fairness requires that we or any other participants who are affected ought to begin to put questions to that witness in order to put the record straight or at the very least to the other side so
8:04 pm
that everybody understands, however, the procedure that the inquiry is following as far as these witnesses are concerned, it is the procedure with the inquiry has required we should put questions to the inquiry council who will then at his discretion put those questions as he thinks they are appropriate to the witness on our behalf. i have no doubt at all that he will do a better job than i would. but i do not want to hide what is an important concern, and that is that reputation will criticism can be made by these witnesses in what is a televised situation between the ought to delete the opportunity of that to respond directly to questions from the lawyers representing the corporate. so can i say two things.
8:05 pm
and i anderson your reluctance to entertain such an application. but if it becomes necessary to correct the matter as prepared as i'm sure he will cover, i hope, all that we require but if it is necessary, then i hope you would entertain an application under rule ten sub four required we notify you of the questions we would wish to put to a witness and i understand that there would be a position of last resort. second, to make it clear, so far as possible, we will file, where necessary, to obviate the need for that as evidence with the inquiry to correct any matter which we perceive to be important and which needs to be corrected. and just as one illustration of that, we will, for example, final evidence coming and you will hear this concerning the way in which the daily mail
8:06 pm
journalists covered the announcement at the birth of his daughter. we will file evidence sharing what we feel the daily mail journalists did and explain exactly what happened and there is no disrespect for who is here this morning. it is simply that we wished to assist the inquiry in explaining what happened and was an illustration and i hope it will be of assistance to you. >> well, the position of the inquiry is comparatively clear. it is abundantly clear based upon the approach that michael more doctored in ireland that it is unusual to permit cross examination outside of the inquiry into the challenge to
8:07 pm
the decision common-law field in northern ireland i think. >> if i may say because there is an overriding duty on the fairness of the act and the rules do permit an application. >> absolutely. i & that. the other important feature is to know that you're absolutely ready to file whatever evidence you feel is appropriate, and i will want it to be balanced and fair, but is under investigation this morning and indeed throughout the inquiry is the conduct and practice of the press is not the conduct and practice of any of the witnesses who are giving evidence. >> i understand that, and i hope, and sure we all hope the
8:08 pm
evidence will be limited so far as possible to deal with the issues. simply to deal with any reputation all criticism that may arise. >> qaeda understand this is called the right of reply which is one of the topics about which some of those who criticize the press complained that is unfair as this stage of the morning let's just see if we can find the right balance. thank you. i understood the point. >> right. the first witnesses.
8:09 pm
i swear by almighty god the evidence i shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. >> i swear by almighty god the evidence i shall give will be the truth of the whole truth and nothing but the truth. >> please sit down. if at any stage you need a break don't hesitate to do so. before we start, can i think you both for being prepared to come to the inquiry? you've done so voluntarily and i am very conscious it is a strain. i can only sympathize to both of you for the appalling loss that you have suffered and that you've gone over many years, very appreciative to both of you for being prepared to expose yourself further to assist me in
8:10 pm
the work i've got to do. so thank you very much. >> i'm not going to ask you to provide your home address. i ask you though please do you confirm the witness' statement and there's a statement at the end of that statement do you come from the truth of that? >> yes. >> mr. chariton has just one or two questions for you. >> i should ask a few introductory questions. good morning mr. and mrs. dowler. i appreciate you may be a little nervous. the last time you gave evidence it was difficult so i'm not going to ask you details about the statement. mr. j will do that in a minute, but can i begin by asking you, we all know that it was the revelation publicly in july of
8:11 pm
this year that her phone had been hacked into by people acting on behalf of news of the world which led to the setting up of this inquiry. can i ask you how you feel about that? >> i will ask this one. i think the gravity of what happened needs to be investigated. i think that it is a much bigger picture obviously, but i think that given that we have learned about this revelation just before the trial it was extremely important people understand exactly in terms of these practices to uncover this information. >> prior to do discovering about milly's phone, did you read stories about other people including well-known people whose phones have also been hacked into? >> yes.
8:12 pm
we had obviously been aware of and have seen the situation and also gordon taylor. the media were very much aware that the study from the celebrity awareness viewpoint, and there was going to be an issue. but of course not realizing until we were informed about hacking in our situation that it spread much more today to speak and how did you feel about the fact that there were other people whose phones have also been hacked? what impact did that have on your case? >> well, fundamentally everybody is entitled to a degree of privacy in their private life. it is a deep concern that our private life became public, but i think also the other people who are in the public eye their private life became public as well. >> we know that in time you instructed mark lewis. can you just explain how you came to instruct mr. lewis?
8:13 pm
>> it was during the trial, just before the trial we found out about milly's phone being attacked. when we were giving that information was terrible to process because what do you do with that inflation when it is in your mind? i was worried about the forthcoming trial but also aware of what happened with cno miller and things and thinking we ought to get some representation but i was frightened of doing that because we didn't have any money for that. so, i didn't quite know how we were going to do that. then the i found him on the internet and left a message on his home and he phoned right back and said please come and see me to the stomach what was your a and come in your objective and going to see mr. lewis? >> i think very much just to be in the position to respond to
8:14 pm
what would possibly become quite a public interest in how we would deal with that because we've been given that inflation but no advice as to what to do but to recognize of course it was quite dynamite information to be aware of every allies as it has come to pass that when made public suddenly we've got very, very excited and motivated about the whole situation. >> can i ask you just a question about the legal representation? did you have the money to pay for legal length vice? >> no, we didn't. >> how were you able to pursue the complaint against news international? >> when we went to see marked, which i have to say it was a difficult thing to do because it was during the trial and there was like we've got to do this because we need someone to represent us and drag us out and
8:15 pm
she said you don't need to worry about the money. i will represent you. come what may. then we were able to use the agreement otherwise we wouldn't have been able to. >> can i finally ask you this. we know that news of the world settled in your claim in july of this year. and you heard my exhibitions and the commission of the other media representatives. what, if anything, would you like to say to news international now? >> i think given the gravity of what became public about what happened to the phone hacking situation and the circumstances under which it took place one would sincerely hope that news international and other media organizations with sincerely look very carefully at how they
8:16 pm
procure and obtain information about the stories because obviously the ramifications are far greater than the story in the press. >> they said to mr. murdoch when they met him this is an opportunity to put things right in the future and to have some decent standards and at here to them. >> thank you very much if you can wait there we will have some further questions. >> it's fitting that you should have been in the inquiry first. first of all to deal with seven of your witness statements. this is the cry that war that occurred in may 2002. do you follow me? nist please to tell us about that in your own words? you said it formally organized?
8:17 pm
what was its purpose? >> well it was seven weeks after she had gone missing but a lot of the sort of initial media hype by the down a little bit and it was the first that was the day that she had gone missing in the afternoon and she would have come home of 4 o'clock and i remember calling and thinking actually he had gone up to london on that day and i said why don't you come back and i will meet you very and we will do that what back because so many questions are just buzzing around in your head. why didn't anyone see her etc., etc. and was a very last minute arrangement so it was maybe an hour or two before i want to do this i will be to the station and we will go back together and previously there had been pressing that the station but
8:18 pm
now it went down in little bit and when we actually got there there was no one there. it was empty. so one of the police officers dropped me off at the station and then we just basically no one was really around so it was very much like the day she had actually gone missing and we put out missing leaflets with her photograph with a telephone number on and that number had been changed and i checking the posters if the right poster was up we will back to the hostages be three-quarters of a mile or something like that and that photograph appeared in the news of the world and i can remember
8:19 pm
seeing that and i was cross because the hit to get their picture of how on earth did they know we were doing that on that day and it just felt like such an intrusion into a brief moment. >> it goes without saying people are watching you. >> absolutely. >> we have the article. as you know to your witness statement we can draw on our own instances as to if their must have been some reporting. >> yes. i don't know where to take the
8:20 pm
pictures. maybe in a parked car somewhere. i don't know. >> the other thing from the picture would basically just be walking along completely immersed in the moment. this all the post and decide to check. >> yes. >> we see on the second day for what it's worth. >> did you make any complaints about this beyond to listening to the police family liaison? >> no. i just phoned that day and asked how did they get this picture? but in the scheme of things at
8:21 pm
the time more importantly was the fact that milly was missing and that was more by the consuming. >> it wouldn't have entered into the complaint three estimate not at that time, no fuse but i would agree we would do everything in the press communications for obvious reasons. >> in paragraph ten you referred to the situations when you were set by journalists and photographers. can you tell us a little bit more about that? >> it became a regular event for people to dhaka on the door. we have established that we wouldn't do interviews. we would only do it through the police for the simple reason of not wanting to create any beagle
8:22 pm
war between the particular publication having access in the same to say, you know, exclusive. but certainly it is polite and at the end of the day the response was the same and always has been the same and even recently we have endorsed it in the recent times as well but i think the thing that was probably quite difficult was on our own the property i was out on our front drive putting something in and suddenly this person approach me and it was just the moment i remembered specifically at the time the head of the investigation was changed and said what do you think of the investigation being changed? it i mean really it was what i'd possibly going to say? i'm not going to say anything.
8:23 pm
i've got no comment, and i think it would have appeared in the paper something to that effect but for the simple reason obviously as we said just to try to avoid because once we engage in one question there is a next question and did you are engaged in the discussion and that becomes an interview, doesn't it? >> we find out the front door it's like you had to be on guard because someone might be there and they would come up to you when you were least expecting it as you are in and out of the car or something and then they would fire a question that he without introducing themselves. >> maybe you feel the pressure of that tactical together a.
8:24 pm
>> it's quite concerning because mao's however the question and however you respond to that question might then lead to one or two and that is obviously difficult to deal with. begich as always tried to be polite and courteous and leave it at that. >> of course i have to ask you next about milly's phone and the voice mail interception you deal with in your written statement. to try to fix this into the
8:25 pm
chronology you think it must be in 2002, is that correct? >> yes, it was quite soon after she had gone missing because where she actually was a duck that was opposite this building down by the station and there were tv cameras so everything focused around these cameras and so we were asked to go up and have a look at some of these to see if we thought someone on there was milly, and do you want me to tell you about what happened? >> yes. first of all you tell us that you were phoning her voice mail quite regularly to see if there was anything else there. >> of course all the time. at first we were able to leave messages and then the voice mail
8:26 pm
became full and then you rain and just got the record you are unable to leave messages at the moment. so i had gotten used to hearing that and we have gone up to the building and when we were sitting downstairs in the reception and i ran her phone and it came through on to her voice mail so i heard her voice it was like she picked at her voice mail, she's alive and was then really. when we were told about the hacking it was the first thing i thought. sponsor your immediate reaction to the phone was jenna come right? >> yes, we spoke to jenna and it died off afterwards because you think is that the only reason that could have happened or what happened but it was the -- like
8:27 pm
i told my friend she picked up her voice mail. >> that is certainly a reasonable inference. can you tell anything about the police reaction? >> i remember they told us they put the credit on her phone because she was very low she had no credit on her phone and i can only really remember them telling us they put credit on her phone. >> and when you told them they managed to get to the voicemail message did that excite any particular reaction? >> i can't really remember that. >> i think one was at the building but unfortunately that was nine years ago to remember the details. >> whether it had an attack on
8:28 pm
police investigation to your recollection? >> at the end of the day. >> and then much later, and this was shortly before the colonel's you learned from the police that the voice mail had been hacked into bye news of the world? >> april of this year. >> specifically that is what we were told. >> what was your immediate reaction for that? >> we got a call from our slo to say that they want to see us to tell us vaguely what it was about and as soon i was told was about phone hacking literally i
8:29 pm
didn't sleep for about three nights because you are poor replaying everything in your mind and just thinking that makes sense now. that makes sense. then we went on to the meeting and i said to them about this instance and about walking back to the station with the two things at the time i thought this is odd to read something is going on. >> in your mind you made the connection with the voice mail and also possible connection with the private what you talked about. >> yes. ..
8:30 pm
8:31 pm
ben. >> well, i think in them preference to that situation you have to remember that we were really, really desperate for some information. and so the press were in a position to be able to help lessen the did it the messes out that she was missing and lots of and permission came into the police headquarters. but on the other hand our questions and being doorstep and everything else that is associated with it, all of the letters that you give requesting books, films, interviews -- >> the point images now is that a couple of the medium quite a bit more.
8:32 pm
certainly it recognize that it was very important that we tried to be as consistent that seek -- we could in dealing with the media and not to actually give e party in particular position or ankle for the village -- the various sexual in not wanting to create another set of issues to deal with because, in fact, in the early days those first six months, of course, we were in a very desperate situation. in paris, in your normal life for most people how you deal with it, how you deal with these things, so we tried as best we could to be as balanced as we could about it, but the kid doesn't of course that the tops of drone control. >> beaten you went outside your own experience and had to rely and their own judgment in an entirely unique situation. did you get any help from police
8:33 pm
liaison offices? >> they really helped. press office. they take the burden of us. >> we chose that route as well. >> unless contest about the settlements of your claim. he referred to rupert murdoch which i think was probably july. >> it was a very tense meetings. >> indeed he made it clear that
8:34 pm
what happened was socially unacceptable. >> he did. yes. he was very sincere. >> you refer to a letter from the company and a meeting with this by minister which i don't think this deserves to go into a suit like to. and sq, both of you about the section of your statements to is the future. you care to consider press and culture and even ethics, which looking back in time, also here to makes and recommendations. this is your sense. is there anything you like to suggest? >> i think when we went to see
8:35 pm
the three party leaders of trimester regress the question at that time we are ordinary people, so we have no experience in such a public situation. so no experience from a media, control media involvement situation. that's always been our own best judgment as to how we dealt with these matters. >> it was more was the extent of football. the inquiry could make the decisions. >> it appears that your judgment is being extremely well exercised throughout. if you have anything more general which you would like to think about, but not that no problem. we will be thinking -- >> that they believe that up to you. >> i'm sorry.
8:36 pm
>> of very generous of you. thank you. >> well. i have no further questions for you. ben i am extremely grateful to for your evidence and the way in which you've been kind lee and frankly answered my questions. >> the key very much. >> the key very much. a thick you're entitled to act for the dallas, but is there any other questions you what to ask? >> no further questions. >> they do very much indeed. >> they do very much for coming. thank you. >> may we break for five minutes? >> yes. certainly. >> all rise. >> five minutes. [inaudible conversations]
8:37 pm
>> now we will hear from actor hugh grant who testified at the british phone hacking investigation talking abut his experiences with the british media. this is about two hours and 15 minutes. >> ayatollah hugh grant do solemnly and sincerely and up from the of that debt will give will be the shoot the whole truth and nothing but the truth. >> your full name please. >> hugh john mundo grants. >> we have prepared a bundle for you. you will find your first statement which is stated end signed by you with the state the attitude of the third of november of this year. i invite you to confirm that is
8:38 pm
your statement. >> is. ben. >> he of the second statements. again, there is a statement of truth. >> yes. >> -- before you do anything, as with some of the other witnesses, i am very grateful for the coming. i am extremely conscious that you are speaking about matters which you would prefer not be in the press and that is a difficult decision ended to build experience for you. i am conscious of it and grateful to you for assisting the inquiry. during a course of the afternoon reelected to have a break. the any stage you would bill the you want a few minutes off 11
8:39 pm
man one. >> is in place is so, the fact it is is evidence of opinion collectors stuck with the evidence of fact. in relation to your career, everyone knows all about your career. you made it big with the film in 1994, four weddings and a funeral. you did rather well with another film in 1987 called "maurice. the one of, in your career took off thereafter. your statement that following the success of four weddings and a funeral in 1994 initially the press comments was favorable and then implemented. did he tell us a bit about the favorable part, the good parts,
8:40 pm
if we can so described in your words. >> localize it was fairly brief. of course on the back of that success of four weddings and a funeral, yes father was say could well. the nation like having a film that was popular and funding and doing very well over the world. we enjoyed the few successes that we did go and i got a little blip of positive press on the back of that. >> yes. >> in the stage was there any interest in your private life, do you think? >> a great deal. but, which the the beginning of the premier of that film. the press became very interested in my girlfriend. >> i think we remember that. [laughter] can and move on, however, too,
8:41 pm
perhaps, the darker side, and this is paragraph 7 million net interest in that. i think it is an important point that i make in this statement. >> all of the questions and campaigning that i have done recently, onic of the abuses of some sections of the british press is emphatically not motivated of the children that i got in 1995. i say in my statement here i was arrested, a public record. i totally expected it to be tons a press. that happened, and have no quarrel with it, none whatsoever it is important to make the point. >> sure enough.
8:42 pm
>> there was an incident involving a break-in to your london flat. >> yes. >> in the front door was forced open offices. it does as if it was professionally done, but there was no damage inside. is that correct? >> the damage and nothing was stolen. >> yes. >> this came as the press storm around the arrest in los angeles. i was now back in london held up in my flat. commenced to get out for the day. when i came back this flap had been broken into, the front door had been basically just showed off of its senses. as i say, nothing was stolen, which was weird. police nevertheless came around the next day to talk about it, and the day after that a detailed account of what the interior of my flat look like appeared in more of a british tabloid papers.
8:43 pm
it was definitely there. i remember thinking who told them that, the burglar or the police. and when i told the story to tom watson recently, the mp who is writing a book put this kind of thing, he nodded knowingly saying, oh, yes, that particular method a break and have come across with several other people who are victims of the cross hairs of a lot of repressed tension. it does not seem to have been a single occasion. it is doubly suggested to me because that flat, as you said, you have to walk a helluva lot of stairs to get there. think it was a very bad choice for no more -- and normal burglar and nothing was stolen. it has ever been broken into the $0.4. >> the political possibilities.a it might be the burglar was pl acting on the press to gain sito
8:44 pm
of the inside of your flat. we don't know.t kn >> local above. >> oboth. >> i think the most like the scenario is bomoth. >> o >> or alternatively a burglarglr decided that there is someone he could make some money. >> will ever. fine. but there were very -- this was the tvime when there was a lot w press outside of the tongue desperate to get, the middle of the summer, and another will listening.were about four floors up, and theyd could actually hear one or two of the rows of was having at thr time, and so i no there were desperate to get some kind oftot access. >> in paragraph eight you deal tions, four of of which were successes. the general idea from a libel claims you're talking about jaco >> i don't it has been 60, 17 years since
8:45 pm
four weddings and i became of any kind of interest to the sube would press, and never imagined fave17 a dozen community more,nl maybe ten. my lawyer, you could ask him, he would know. hear outt mentioned to woulhose because it would be very to do it -- very boring to go to the mall. in in themselves they are not significant, but these two tse o particular examples, i think, are significant.gnifican >> yes. the example that you give inparp paragraph 11, february 2 does the seventh caught the woman is you, are you suggesting there that thse story must of comparable necking? phone >> well, what i say in this wel paragraph is that the mail onheo
8:46 pm
sunday ran an article did yuri 2007 saying that my relationship relation with weather and girlfriend was on the rocks because of my persistent lignite flagitious-ns phone calls with a plumb theleny voiced studio executive fromvo warner brothers.utives fr it was a bizarre story, bizarre, completely untrue. u i sue for libel. on damages were awarded and the statement was made in opwen cout i was the key of how the tod ossibly come up with such a bizarre and left field story ini realize that although there was no plumb the voiced studiono executive from warner brothers with whom i had any kind of relationship, flirtatious orelap otherwise, there was a greatpate friend of mine in los angelest who runs a production company was in which is associated with warners brothers and his assistants, a charming marriage the lady inchi english who, as happens ind
8:47 pm
hollywood, is the person whopesn brings you. he's the kid never rings you. t it's always their assistant. hi, we have jerry bailey on ther phone, and this was used to do e call and leave messages. becaus sometimes when we spoke with would have a joke about endless. sp and so she would leave charming jokey messages sent please call jokine this studio executive back. the she has a voice that could only be described as qaeda for life of me think of any conceivable source for thiso story and the mail on sundaythiy except those voice messages on my mobile telephone. el w >> you have not alleges that before. hav >> no, but when ie was preparing this statement and going through all of my old trials andough tribulations are lifted the oneh again and thought that is weird, and then the penny dropped.
8:48 pm
>> the speculation on your part? >> yes. you speculation. okay.culatio i would love to know -- i mean, i think the captain represents i associated was saying earlier w today that he would like to put in a supplementary statement. unicolor referring to the things i said today. what i would love to hear : the euros of the some mammalsl o explanation as to what that wasa and if it was not fun acting? >> avenue. i may come back to that. i will leave that for the time o being. her the next article you refer to ,his paragraph 12 of yourhis pa2 statements., , the point about this article, we have had to end hd
8:49 pm
one. internal that is page three.ber the the number at the bottom, the sd right hand side, 192. this article is entirely untrue. >> yes. it is an article that washt purported to be written by meit, and which i had not ridden, nor had i done that thing that, you know, happens. someone talking to someone. it was completely, as far as ina can see -- either made up for s past and pasted from previous quotations that i might have given in interviews. rnd that is why, as i recall,as they lost their case and had ton tpologize.>> this atemen >> this statement in the open court. society that point. do not macontribute to the arti in anyc way. those are two examples of ose defamation. you also provide examples of
8:50 pm
trivia.hese the first of these over which there was litigation was paragraph 13. a visit. >> yes. >> tito's of which it is whih ar unnecessary to go into. this culminates in a claim against the mayor for which ther competence, and this is just this right.stce, is >> yes. >> you complain to their pcs see , and that claim was upheld ad t law was it not?held, >> yes.t? finally, but after a lot of fina leverage, and it took months an. months. to there were very reluctant too de anything.rel finally i got a tiny recognitioi that my complaint to been appellate deepen the newspaper , without referring to what the complex was about.abo. >> if i take that in stages -- the stages, the education that
8:51 pm
you have under tab for. >> all right. it would take three hours. >> only one document. >> yes. >> they upheld. bayoneted in the second paragraph. naudib the complaint is also numbered -- raised a number of issues arising from the complaints of come facility and source of the nfiden nation which are of the thide commission's agreement. and then the commission at thecn bottom rigid the the late. rer that was to do with the resolving issues of jurisdiction ju rightly or wrongly i don't thini it there is anything for us to i go into. there were questions raised asee to whether your complaint fell within the bcc.[inaible it took me] some to resolve thoe questions.stion was there resolve the questions part of thed that complaint with said felt they could deal with.h they f do you understand that?
8:52 pm
>> said understand that is what the road, but i fail entirely t understand how and individuals medical records being appropriated and printed forropa commercial profit could not como under the remiss of the bcc.what if that doesn't, what does support? >> they're saying it did.y di >> know why does it take soakens long?ow >> here is center complained,mp you can see that in the first ie paragraph, the education,udicatn confidential medical information about you was published.about that is the complete theat's initially focus on, and the appellate.up >> we don't know from this document the dheate of this education. addicati everybody agrees. y. you said it took a long time,oo but dok you know the date? yu do you remember approximately how long it took?
8:53 pm
aiden. >> my recollection is that it is about three months.s >> del assembly will be able to >>oubtles tell us that some states. don't worry about it. >> right.. >> don't worry about it. >> there is another similar complaint or rather issue, and d you touched on this in paragrap 15 of your statement.atemen reasons.a. the hospital in march.thi first of all, are you happy that we talk but that? >> yes., otherwise i would not have put it in the statement.ment. >> the article itself is under hq one. the internal numbering is page 14. blogger number on the bottom page, the side of the number ending 1932.
8:54 pm
ac one is tab number >> thank you. 1932. >> yes. fourteen just above it.een just. >> okay. i've got it. >> of the test due to comments. the details. you ended up in the emergency department of this hospital. what they're saying there may be trying to say was that here was a famous man. he waits to discern. we all know from these departments that you sometimes have to wait a long time.ious, e the serious, you make them work ectsell one that complaint in this reflects weather well. >> >> that is not my interpretation
8:55 pm
of the story. rerp the classic tablet technique toq cover a really egregious breachy of some conspiracy is to wrap it up unless story.up in ferrer someone's baby.babyhey it will sell, what a pretty baby to try and stop the appearancet uing him fohr breach ofbreh procedure. this is exactly the same.n arice not only that i went, what i went for, medical record. it was that complaint that i way dizzy and sort of breath which to me isch a gross up treason ad my privacy, and they have deliberately just that up as a flattering article about how and feverish i was to try and get away withas that. >> it ended up, i will come back it , but it ended up with ying d damages being paid.charit is th >> yes. it was such is the sun who? rana
8:56 pm
these press rant a piece similaa as i recall, and i've said in my statement, by the stage of my statement, this was only, this year, it was -- i was very., certainly it to a degree wary oe in this lawsuit against tabloidf the take a long time demolish just.f i try to short circuit it bystes offering them, no lawsuits ifhee you adjust each pay 5,000 pounds to a charity which i support called health talk online.heltht seen as they have both talked ty about my health online i thought that was elegance. the express the flat refused to pay at penny.r much after much protest in the suns gave the charity 1500 pounds. ,> is this your point?int, mr.rt it doesn't matter whether the the underlying story is rubin.
8:57 pm
the point is it is an invasion o of your privacy and not a matten of public interest in peoplest,e putting up articles about youroi health? is, >> reporter: nutsll? >> i think no one would expect,d no british citizen would expect their medical precord to be made public or to be pro created by newspapers as commercialprofit property. think that is fundamental to oul british sense of decency. >> just to be fair, we don't know the source of the story from the article itself. cl maybe it was just a lucky thi guess. >> adult think there probablyobb suggesting that, but it could b. a number of different. >> what would they be, sir? >> there could well be evidencee about this later, with the storo came from a picture agency thatp had been tipped off bybe
8:58 pm
nonmedical employee a hospital. ho could that be true? wa well, there was the picture, so that it is a little beard.d. but for them to know the detailo of why i went there it must'vet been someone with access to the computer were you register. hope and ensure it was not the medical staff practices were fantastic in that hospital, and they always are.n i suspect that it was the age old system of someone at the hospital being on a retainer from either a tabloid newspapera perhaps a pitch your agency.ncyu if anyone famous continue until a sense here is 50 quit or 500eu quit or beverages. i quite sure, my opinion is tha, is the source. that had been back in june 1996. as it was again, recently in tht case. paragra >> and paragraphs 16 and 17 of your statement, you deal with
8:59 pm
other intrusions on their whh privacy which i think we will list if you don't mind those being read. i would like to move on to paragraph 18 anti section about an automobile you give oneexaple example of a paragraph 18 above been chased a high-speed., o can you tell us a little bit more about that? out tha >> a relatively common com occurrence with two of the girlt from the fat. combine the both the children. in both cases -- look, that'slyt not qui'ste fair. the first girlfriend when shet,w was with the we did not have ihildren, so that does not sh d apply, but the second girlfriend , although that first
9:00 pm
coke and had subsequently had thfirst children, had been buried --ad very badly taste and a keys. ofd she did have children and was very frequently followed and chased him even when she had her children in the car.t, then people look for petro andtd last the paparazzi to please god, and these would continue to take ar pictures.paparazzi uld then there would be bought by one of the national newspapers. >> working freelance.aparazziedw >> yes. as i explain the statement,freea there are two kinds of press photographer, the ones who are on staff with the paper who jusy occasionally show a modicum ofad decency, ailthough they did not in the case of my baby recently. th they staked out a new mother for three days.three das. she could not leave for home. and then there are the much muh
9:01 pm
worse freelance who are p increasingly the -- well,wellth increasingly recruited fromstom, criminal class's and very often have criminal records inve ri different fields a crimethey hae previous to being paparazzi andr two will release stop at nothin nd show no pamercy and no ethip because the bounty on some ofshw these pictures is very high. and i suspect that the ones who, for instance, were chasing my girlfriend and her children were those freelance types. wer i suspect there were the ones to try to take -- always try tooa take pictures of grows skirts to and dizzily remove theirsin underwear's of the console the picture for the more.picure i suspect they are the ones who were following princess dianaesn which she died. whm when the tabloid papers promisea there wopeuld never buy pictureu from reagain but with his subsequently did about three months later.
9:02 pm
>> i would like to come back to the mechanism whereby any ofwheb that can be controlled. >> >> move on to the issue of packing. about it's been covered in some detail. he tell us in paragraph 24 lebron the morning started to come through from the media lawyers about how to protectote privacy. numbers should be changed frequently. be can you remember when those >> iings started to emanates? >> i can't exactly. i'm guessing that was early 2000-2005. right.
9:03 pm
>> and review the direct recipient captain. recipient e i had circular e-mails thated were sent from media lawyers. at the damage had been an ex i thin plants. i remember looking at this liste send these are some of the things arab to.tte be careful blue to still be careful careful of your plan numbers. oe careful of your phones and ss on. didn't one.t your cd swept >> and then paragraph 25, about 2004, someone came from the so information position. >> this.the >> have always been confused. was not he was now wearing uniform, buts i have always told the story ase a policeman.h
9:04 pm
i wish i could tell youor accurately. i can't find. anca i have looked everywhere for the details of the meeting.ailsfor he came to my house, said in my kitchen and tell me that they had arreisted the privatekitchet detective become a privateectiv investigator contained one into the personal details of the number ofls people, and i was oe of the new. it contains my address, the m address of my close friends, relations.i rember i remember in st. phone-number is, although i can't imagine they'd come to tolerate the ddress isad my a everyone had my address. i said who is this personsaid working for, and he said ite loorks as if he is working for most of the british press. >> which might suggest it wast s informations. mr. >> i'm sure it wasn't more care.
9:05 pm
>> i think you'll find the information commissioner employs six police officers. >> we know that because therew b was a store recently in thesto independence about one ofr thos peace officers who was shocked that at the end of thisked at to particular inquiry there were not allowed to interview any of the journalists who hired thewh private detective in the first place. >> you're in danger of foreshadowing evidence will be hearing next week from the relevant person. but what i need to put to you, h clearly the information commissioner said positioned,ofe they never discovered in ther de evidence of phone hacking.a ur that is right it wouldt yo suggest that your recollection c be t be incorrect and you must be confusing this with the mall care no books and not the -- - >> if at the end of this was not the motor case that came to me. as i said to you before, i cannot understand why they woule come and tell mey that a man had my address because everyone hadd
9:06 pm
my address.all the there are out there all the time. so if he did not also have myavy phone numbers at the very leastl and i think he had pin numbers as well, then i don't understand why he i would come to see me. >> but then of course i wouldplt break that down. having your address, although it may not be that difficult at, piece of data to obtain, could be obtained in breach of thebt data protection act? >> yes. yes. >> ended maybe if you are a seceding what could have been a reasonably limited if not and remarkable discussion which waso limited to breaches of the datas protection act and in a sharplyt from that umbrian more censor details about the numbers ands possible evidence. >> through are obviously not going to agree on that, so weeeo part with thatleve issue, but certainly they were
9:07 pm
telling me aboy ut that kind of thing.d f >> certainly. >> was that the phrase theyth pr used? u >> i cannot remember.member. it was 2004, but it was --on't i assi don't figure to assume that mr. j is agreeing ormr. jay disagreeing. the fact is that i am sure heth, appreciates it is very important that those others who are going to give evidence, some of them have seen parts of what you have have s said.aid part of the system that you are asked about their concerns soher you can respond. he should not assume that he is asking the question and the service is a great with or gr disagree with the proposition ht is put to to y >> understand. >> when his name was mentioned by the gentleman complex policeman or otherwise. fom >> i don't think so.rmation but seeing as that whole inquirh was about the arrest isole in difficult to imagine that it was
9:08 pm
what anyone else. >> you don't know subsequently.. >> yes. >> the next event was a chance encounter with someone calledwi do with you deal with in paragraph 26 o6 your witness statement. of your >> yes. >> and tell us about the chancee encounter. we have read, but you ended up in the same as >> yes. i broke down in my car and in kent, the rock this country such as before christmas last year. but, what am i going to do, anda lead for my appointment.i am lry and no taxes was it was christmas eve, icy. amazingly eckhardt pull the thad
9:09 pm
the carriage way., i thought to look good, some nice person has come to help. h. instead of stepped a man with ai great long lens. i cadn't believe in the middle f kids in the middle of one to the midd he came over in the stick in lots of pictures. i was not entirely paillettesret and. hi then then to my horror i thought there was no other way ofthwoul. getting to his apartment. i kept saying to you want a list t? if finally ended.finally and then i was in the car with a this man.nd. that is when he revealed that he was an ex news of the world editores editor who is now retired and running a pub down s in dover.ninga he kept his camera in hishisca soolbox of his car just in case some happy accident, which he just encountered.ccide then he went on to tell me all these fascinating things abouth, how extensive phone hacking have been at the news of the world, w
9:10 pm
however have been known about, how they have enjoyed the competitive sycophancy of five successive governments, the way they paid of the police of t commander was thinking forpaid e years, and i think this is allwr amazing stuff. i i wish i had a tape-recorded. >> the long story short the nex, time you saw and he did haved pushed tape-recorded. >> says. that's right. yes, thats >> and indeed, there is a piece about it. again, and our bundle, ac one, the internal number, the logger, number, 1933.umber >> yes. quite it is quite a zippy title. >> thank you. >> is this a verbatim transcript
9:11 pm
of the tape recording? >> yes. there are boring bits left out. biput in all the juicy bits.jui >> we have all read it. h i'm not going to go over all ofn it, you understand. had bei en asked to go over a particular. partic was not intending to do so.ene the very bottom of the thirdottf page, you are to begin. it reads atc the moment, it wasw that just the news of the world. it was commanded continues. first of all, you remember what goes in there? >> no. that was one of the boring bitsg ht is nothing sinister. t
9:12 pm
>> the tape recording is quite hard to year, and i was onlyd ble to transcribe having justb, >> i the meeting. >> necessary. with >> i do have a problem with thay bill is i feel like my revenger number, i, for me, that is the issue closed with them. when i have had two separate hve police inquiries there vastlyedf for the tape and i refused because it is seems to me tootoo harsh.ha i don't want tors be sending one of them to prison. in addition to which he had toth give himself credit for havinggo
9:13 pm
been a whistle-blower on allstll this stufowf. >> okay. we get that answer, but i havegn to continue with your question.r >> yes. qution. >> it was not just the news of the, it was theyou male. very much a leading question. >> there was no evidence. >> but i am not a lawyer. i am allowed to ask questions.o >> fair enough. tions. there is no evidence that you i have to your personal knowledge that there was any involvementtw at all,as is there? i will ask you to be very very careful.swer to e don't share speculation, don'tnp share in the le're looking for evidence. if there isn't any evidence --ds >> the evidence for the dailyhey mail being involved in phone hacking for me, the article we spoke about earlier. the plan voiced woman.woman, and
9:14 pm
it would be the answer to theuld huestion. t >> okay. jessica the incident. ohabsolu absolutely yes. when i went freelance in 2004 the biggest paris, thought it would be the news of the world but actually was the daily maili at take a good picture.persn in new york case the mail onin r sunday. you see that story, the picture. of you breaking down. story? wanted thank you for that. he is talking there about a aout photograph with you.ou, >> well, he segues into that, sg but i did not leave anything out if it helps the team come roundp to my house and listen to the m tape. i left nothing about.eft it was the male and himust answering zero, absolutely yes. ir youggest, you would have thought it would have been news
9:15 pm
of the weorld, but it was the daily mail. there is nothing left out. >> where you're asking us to do then is to read carefully what u he said and interpret his answes and certainly one highly reasonable interpretation of his answer is that he is limiting his comments come as evidence,ni if you like, to the selling of photographs, isn't it? >> as i said before, he seguesne in that answer straight on to photographs. if i take a big picture of the first person.on. so i agree that it is strange centex. synt it is a segue, but i have no b reason tout believe that his answer referred to the daily mail being involved in a phonebh hacking. >> i have to ask this one question. have you been drinking?rin >> had i?>>ad i >> no, had mr. mcmullen?
9:16 pm
>> it does seem drunk at all.set >> she didn't. >> >> okay. >> and then you say why would they buy a phone hacked story? isn'that well, isn't that a bit of an odd question given that he had not referred to a vote hecks story?? >> not at all given that he hadt just done the strange sight weight. that was me trying to get back td the interesting bits. nothing interesting that they have photographs of me brokennvi down.e hacking what i do is immediately, i saye but with a buy phone hacking stories, to which he answers for about four or five years there have been absolutely clean itand and clean, and before that there five were a y sturdy as anyone. they have the most money. >> a matter for comment, but he has not given any details theres has any specific phone hackingtf activity by the daily mail, has the?
9:17 pm
>> no. >> we can read on from the rest, of it.aid is it's quite controversial. pesticide bill read it. read >> about this inquiry was for controversy. >> controversial and the sense that it names listed the names. >> so price of its plan. you know perfectly well this ist a police exist to devastation. >> oh, that. yes. yes. >> i have to be extremelyto be careful.mely >> i and a stand. >> of course. >> i'm sure you would not want >> to either. >> i would o not. t> in case i sound to peru this is being published in the public statin. anybody can search.
9:18 pm
frankly we will leave it at that. >> are we saying for clarity mr that if the inquiry wanted to nted listen, just to the bits of the tape as we have been discussingv specifically a something this year would be comfortable with e or uncomfortable with.with? >> yes because i don't think they sent him to prison. that's fine. >> of want to make it clear, ant not being too coy about theut te investigation.invest i have madige some rulings about how we're going to go. we are going to do it, but i ad unnecessaryma material and to the public domain beyond that which it's necessary to go to identify the culture, practices and ethics. >> i get that.
9:19 pm
>> and to be absolutely clear. >> select. >> the position will be fully explored. well, that is helpful to the case.nin but you also tell us, parent of 27 of your witnesses. earlier this year the operation comes to you. we have heard two other witnesses speak about this same sort of situation. yo they tell you that your phone ia beingck tell could you tell us a liuttle bit about that please? >> yes. the ring mat lawyer, the police bring my lawyer and wanted toy a show mend some evidence. they came around. one of the previous witnesses pr today explained, quite a formal
9:20 pm
th thing. they get out these pages ands an formally announce them and thene they say, would you have a look at this? say w is there anything that you ts recognize?p and lipton saw various phoneythi numbers ofng y mind from the mie of two dozen five, somethinger 0 like that together with pin withers, some access numbers. they used to give a separate phone number to brintg your raises remotely from another to phone. mess and then there were other names are recognized on there. people around me, girlfriends,oo people i knew, numbers, words, it all sort of made sense. among particular case it case t triggered a memory of a couple of stories that had been in thee daily mirror and in the days e-mail "the daily mail." and i found that interesting. when you see these pieces of
9:21 pm
paper in a place in korea they their attack certain bits, including the famous top left hand corner which is where mullah care kept the initials of a particular journalist who had commissioned the phone hacking. so subsequent to that meeting the police, i was very interested to know who had commissioned that particular page of hacking seemed that this particular story had not appeared in the "news of the world" that have appeared in "the daily mail" and the "daily mirror." >> then you mentioned "the daily mail," you mentioned it for the first time. it's not in your witness statement. >> yes. >> yes, my apologies, you have to. okay. >> the top corner which, of course, we are excited again for the reasons i've displayed, that was, in fact, somebody -- >> to get access to the redacted
9:22 pm
top left hand corner, i was told i had to ask for it formally through a court or get a disclosure order from the metropolitan police. so i got it, and it was, in fact, or seems to be, a journalist from the "news of the world." that is a mystery that he commissioned the work but it appeared in the mail and the mere. >> -- the mere. [inaudible] may i move on, please, do your supplementary statement. this deals with quite recent events. culminating in the injunction last week.
9:23 pm
we have seen a copy of his judgment. first of all, can i ask you please to look at hg 2, which will be behind your witness statement, a separate tab. not going to go into this much detail, and that you want me to. it relates to the front page of the "news of the world," april of this year. it looks as if these are photographs taken with a telephoto lens, is that right? >> i would imagine so, yes. i was definitely unaware they were being taken.
9:24 pm
i wish i could find the piece of paper. what is the tab number? >> it is under tabbed 2. you can go to the first six or seven pages of your witness statement and then you should find an exhibit h. g. 2, and the first couple of pages of the exhibit are three pages, are the articles we are referring to. argue with me speak was obvious that i think stupid i am on the second tab -- >> third tab. [inaudible] >> you can have my copy if there's any problem with it. >> thank you very much. thanks. >> thank you, sir. >> so you have it now. we are not concerned with the headline. we are not concerned with a
9:25 pm
detailed. unless you want to discuss it. the point is this is a telephoto lens really and you were unaware these photographs were being taken? >> correct. >> you also see in your statement you were not asked to comment before the piece was published along with a photograph? >> correct. >> and had you been asked to comment, what might have you said? >> i would have said nothing. i would have, there would have been, i wouldn't have returned the calls. >> might you have taken proactive steps to protect your privacy, for example, by taking legal? >> if i done that it would've drawn attention attention to the whole story. my overwhelming motive throughout this whole episode was to protect the mother of my child from a press storm, so
9:26 pm
anything like you just suggested would have been one way of alerting the media. and would've been a matter of public record and they would've said this is a good story, and her life would've been hell, as it subsequently was. >> by doing nothing, your life and her of life was made hell anyway, wasn't? >> well, we held them off for a surprisingly long time. after this article they followed her around. she was a single pregnant woman. she was being tailed by paparazzi, one in particular, who frightened her a lot. over the months of her pregnancy. but they didn't have anything to print that could link her to me until i visited the hospital after the birth when, again, this seems a bit of leak from the hospital at that point. the dam was preached and we were bombarded with calls -- was
9:27 pm
breached and were bombarded with calls saying we know this happened, that she had a baby in the hospital and hugh grant visited, and even new fake name she checked into the hospital under. clearly there have been a leak. and then again, asked to say nothing which we differ longtime. a lot of pressure was put on, the typical pressure of the tablet, in this case it was a daily mail who seem to have all of the information, the details of the hospital and the fake name, et cetera. they kept saying we're going to print, we're going to print the story anyway, what's your comment? because i have gotten wise to this technique over the years, it seems me that was a fishing technique and they didn't want to print the story based solely on their hospitals was because that might have been unethical or possibly illegal so they need a comment for my site. and that is why i said nothing, and i asked all my assistance in london and my p.r. people in america who didn't even know
9:28 pm
about this baby to say nothing as well. >> we are moving ahead a bit. quite important details before that. >> i'm sorry. >> particularly paragraph five. on question time, then you tell us about the phone calls -- and we see what you say about it, and the man said till hugh grant to shut up. after that whether please involve? >> when she told me about the next day i he merely called and we agreed to get the police onto it, which we did. but the last moment the mother probably rightly in retrospect said let's not do that because there's always a chance of elite from the police and that will bring down the press storm on my head. so we didn't.
9:29 pm
>> taking things in stages, the contact was made with the police. the police were willing to assist, were they not? >> yes, they were. >> but then as they were called off because they concerned about leaks from the press to the police? >> from the police to the press, yes. >> you touch on this, and the final sense of the paragraph six,urseco .. statement. i'm going to ask you to try to exclude from your mind supposition, speculation and opinion. do you have any direct evidence of leaks from the police to the press which you can give us evidence, mr. grant? >> i'm not quite sure where supposition blends into evidence, but -- >> do you have direct knowledge of? can we start with that? >> all i know is that for a number of years, although it did
9:30 pm
get better in recent years, if someone like me call the police for a burglary, a muggy, something industry, something that happened to one of me or micro then, the chances are that a photographer or a reporter would turn up on your doorstep before a policeman. so whether you call that supposition or fact, i don't know. and on top of that i have of course also paul mullins recording session recorded testimony, testament, what he said about a third of the metropolitan police were on the backend of the tabloid press. >> i think there you're commenting on other people's evidence. can the tried and confined it to your own evidence? >> well, it wasn't just me to experience this phenomenon of reporters are paparazzi coming around instead of a policeman. other people have been in the public eye who i used this conversation with, complaint exactly of the same thing.
9:31 pm
>> right. i think what i'm trying to do is trying to ask you to give an example of something which might give rise to the inference that there was a leak from the police to the press. take an example from your own expense, not you commenting on someone else's experience. do you see my point? >> yeah. i'm trying to think of a specific one but i certainly remember my one girlfriend been mugged, and we called the police and it was the photographers who came around first. >> thank you. >> going back to your second witness statement, you visited the hospital i think the day after childbirth. >> yeah. spent i think him if he don't mind me giving the date, the end
9:32 pm
of september and? >> yeah. >> and what happened after that visit? >> well, i had been very reluctant to be present at the birth, because of the danger of a leak from the hospital bringing this press storm down on the mother of my child and for what was about to be my child. so i had asked me a plan with a mother not to visit at all when she got home from across the. she was happy with that plan. she had her parents there. she had my cousin there. but action on the day after the birth i couldn't resist a quick visit. i thought i would try to get away with it. i went, i had a look. it was very nice, but the day after that i think it was, the phone calls started from "the daily mail."
9:33 pm
in this case same we know about her having had this baby can we know what name she checked under, we're going to write this story. so all my fears about the leak seemed to have been justified. >> the evidence you provide the inquiry in relation, this again is in exhibit hg 2, if you can find in that bundle, or we can provide it to you, provided to you separately. there are examples of e-mails and texts dated the 21st of october, which is three weeks at a bit after the birth. >> yeah.
9:34 pm
>> to be a clear about it, "the daily mail" did not publish the story, today, until the news had been broken by someone else, >> they , >> they threatened to because we didn't comment they didn't until it was brought in by an american magazine. >> you say they threatened you, but another way of looking at this is until they have a comment from you concerning the truth of the store, they quite rightly decided not to publish, is that they're? >> that would be wrong. bringing my assistant or my publicity people in new york who started to get the calls as
9:35 pm
well, and on these phone calls it was consistently we are publishing this story tomorrow, which is a tactic of print and ship to make you say something so they could stand up a story that otherwise they would have to stand up entirely on leaked information from hospital spend whatever they were saying to you in order to to either confirm or deny the story, it is an incontestable fact that they didn't publish the story, did they? >> they did not, no. >> and it is a fair, the reason why they didn't publish the story is that you hadn't confirmed its troop? >> i disagree with your interpretation. i think the reason they didn't publish it is because they would not have looked good to a publisher from a leaking information from hospital which is unethical. >> might have updated information from somewhere else altogether, right? >> it's highly impossible that i find incredible.
9:36 pm
>> was there into some other newspapers about his times because there was the daily star i think were onto it somewhat, yeah. but originally, the whole story had been the subject back in the face of the pregnancy, had been the subject of "news of the world" interest. one journalist in particular. when the "news of the world" was closed down, that journalist appeared to have moved over to "the daily mail" because a lot of this work and these calls come from that same journalist, now representing "the daily mail." >> those no evidence of that journalist took any photographs with him from the "news of the world" to "the daily mail," is there? ..
9:37 pm
or one of his photographers they are the same picture of the news of the world surveillance shot the the daily mills subsequently published. >> those pictures could have been purchased from the same property. there is the single of the malcolm who had provided the photographs to the news of the world originally. >> yes. they could. >> before going back on the incident which culminated in the injunction proceedings we cover this in paragraph 20 of yourstat
9:38 pm
>>atement. potentially very dangerous ha because they had to jump out of the way of the car in which one or more of these individuals with the camera; that's correct? >> yes. the house where the mother of my child and my child were besieged was surrounded by the paparazzi and i asked my lawyer what could be done and they said maybe if we could get some pictures of these so that they could be called off. the 61 grandmother of my child took a picture of a man sitting in a car with a great big camera. he turned around and took a lot of pictures of her, wound the window down and shouted a lot of abuse at her and as she crossed the road he drove at her very fast and made her jump out of the way and then at the end of
9:39 pm
the road he did a u-turn and menaced her with the car. >> i think the police were also involved, were they not? >> well, the police have been called and they're coming on wednesday to see about this. >> at the time my understanding the police offered to go around and get a statement or investigate the matter with the mother and the grandmother. did you know about that? >> i think -- i can't remember. i think we may have talked about that. i can't remember the exact fact of that. but certainly the police should have involved. >> yes. the police did want to become involved. and they were told and isn't there a suggestion this is improper. they were told by your solicitor you prefer in the first instance to get an injunction, is that possible? >> well, that may be true that my barrister may have said that and he may have been right a police investigation might have taken some time and it may have
9:40 pm
put one bad pap out of the way and there's a whole bunch of them outside and considering this is an egregious event likely to warrant an injunction against all of these people, that seems like the right tactic that he adopted. >> yes. now, on questioning the tactical strategy. >> okay. >> and we know what has happened and we've read the reasons in a publicly veritable judgment. but to these serious matters your publicist put out a statement about the -- about the birth; is that right? in the end -- in the end having held off all that time from all these inquiries and this brinkmannship from the british papers and a magazine in america, us magazine seemed to have gotten hold of the story. >> yes. >> and they published it at
9:41 pm
which point i was in sort of a no-win situation. i in the end decided the best thing to do is because the story within hours was going to go everywhere, particularly, into the british tabloids and i was very anxious that they would give it a twisted spin. so i thought the best thing to do is to be as honest about the thing as possible. so i said i was delighted by the birth but i did not want the papers to write a twisted version of which suggested that she was a jilted girlfriend so i tried to find a form of words to say that she was a friend but had not been a formal girlfriend and that, therefore, there was no question of her having been jilted as a pregnant mother. >> was it your form of words or your publicist's form of words? >> well, we had a hasty conversation on the phone while i was filming in germany.
9:42 pm
it was not ideal circumstances. i was dressed as a cannibal at the time. [laughter] >> maybe you were. but there's a form of words which were -- were these, i can confer -- this is your publicist speaking on your behalf. >> yeah. >> hugh grant is the delighted father of a baby girl. he and the mother had a fleeting affair and while this was not planned, hugh could not be happier or more -- putting it bluntly -- >> as i just said to you i felt it was important to be honest and not to have the wrong version, a twisted version appear in the newspapers who had been my girlfriend which had been dumped when she got pregnant that was not the case or it was a planned pregnancy that i was running from. i didn't want her to be a jilted
9:43 pm
girlfriend or i was a monster running away from my girlfriend. it's true i have been given a hard time for using those words which is ironic which is actually the truth but that doesn't seem to be very popular. >> well, one alternative strategy might have been to say simply to confirm the birth of the child that you're a delighted father that this is a private matter and neither the mother nor the father wish to comment further. >> which would have been an invitation to the papers to write something invented about the relationship that i had with that girl. if in the absence of information, they'll make it up. >> what did happen in response to the form of words that you selected? you relied on one piece about
9:44 pm
amanda brutell which is written in a particular tone or style that other newspapers have put in similar pieces. are you aware it was quoted in the "times" saying to the effect that you should marry the woman in the guardian and something in the daily telegraph. i mean, it could be said all organizations of the press are intruding into your privacy. but the theme from each of them is not inconsistent? >> well, first of all, there were some supportive pieces as well especially in the broad sheets that said, you know -- gave me some credit for having stood up -- and put my hand up and this is my baby and i'm delighted and, you know, providing for the child and the mother.
9:45 pm
the hatchet jobs -- that's fine. i expect hatchet jobs. that's been the story for 17 years. but it always does make you grind your teeth slightly when they're based on falsities and misreportings and the fact that i now had a 21-year-old german girlfriend and, in fact, i don't. that was an invented girlfriend infected by a german tabloid and copied faithfully by british hacks and it was -- the hatchet jobs were based on the fact that i appeared to visit for half hour callously for the birth and if i would have been a really good father that i wouldn't have visited at all since it brought a press storm on the mother's head. >> i'll just finish this little sequence of events before we break but in terms of your
9:46 pm
privacy, is it your position that these matters should not have been covered at all in the press. so is it your position they should have been covered in a certain way, in a way which didn't misrepresent -- >> if you cling to the naive notion that newspapers report the truth, nothing could really be wrong with that. i mean, i had a baby with this girl. she's a good friend of mine. she still is a good friend. it's a nice thing. there's really not much more to it than that. but that doesn't necessarily newspapers. a nasty spin has to be given to it, hence, the extraordinary efforts of various newspapers to dig dirt on the new mother, happily enjoying her new baby while "the daily mail" paid 125,000 pounds for her ex-lover to sell private pictures of her. >> i think your complaint is -- it's not the intrusion into your privacy per se. it is the nasty spin they put on
9:47 pm
a story which have they reported it in a fairer and more accurate way would have been a proper story for them to print; is that right? >> no. there are moments which are intrusions of privacy. if you paid someone off at the portland hospital to say something about a celebrity's baby that's an invasion of privacy. but also there's an ugly spin being put on a lot of this stuff because it sells papers better. and in the opinion of some people, the particularly ugly spin in the last few weeks given to the birth of my baby was not unrelated to the fact that i'm here today giving evidence at this inquiry and its reference in some of those hatchet jobs including by amanda butell. she gives my concerns of abuses of tabloid press which is a reason i should be loathe. it's possible for some people to see a connection between those
9:48 pm
hatchet jobs and what i'm saying here and have said for the last few months. >> yes. the part you paid off someone at the portland hospital, that is -- it's just a piece of speculation on your part. you don't know that's how the story broke at all, do you? >> unless the -- my cousin range up "the daily mail" and told them all the chinese parents who speak no english who did that, it's very hard to draw any other conclusions. >> do you know how the american paper magazine got ahold of the story? >> no. >> well, that may be a convenient -- >> we'll have a break, and you can have a break too. but let me just ask, you've been granted relief, has that grant of relief been reflected in your
9:49 pm
child and her mother being left alone? >> yes. very grateful for it. >> you'll be conscious that i've made it clear that i would want to know this intrusion arose as a result of anybody giving evidence to this inquiry? >> yeah. i heard that and i'm grateful for that too. >> can i bring up two very brief matters of chronology. the first was raised in relation to the 1996 daily mirror article that mr. grant refers to paragraph 13 in his witness statement and you ask that it might be possible that we would have the dates. can i just give you those dates because we've managed to obtain them. as i understand it, the visit to
9:50 pm
the hospital was in may, 1996, the 9th of may. the article which appeared on the daily mirror which was on the 23rd of june of 1996. the adjudication was not until the 27th of july of 1997 by mr. grant and his recollection, perhaps he's being somewhat generous. perhaps it took over a year for that adjudication to arise. as i understand it, a claim was issued, a legal claim, was issued in october of 1997 which resulted somewhat more speedily in the judgment that he refers to in paragraph 14 being given in his favor in december, only some two months later. >> all right. thank you. >> and then can i move on secondly to the injunction mr. jay referred to the police and reports that the police and
9:51 pm
the decision to follow a civil course instead or at least in the first instance. can i just remind you, sir, that the incident in relation to the paparazzi who was trying to run over mr. grant's baby's grandmother's took place on thursday the tuesday of november and i applied the next day for an emergency injunction on friday the 11th of november which was granted by the justice and his reasons arrived a week later, the purpose, of course, was to immediately bring the campaign to an end which as you just heard, it did with remarkable efficiency. that's all i wanted to say, sir. >> okay.
9:52 pm
thank you. this chronology actually comes out of the justice's judgment, which we've got. >> thank you we are continuing now after this break with testimony from actor hugh grant. >> you referred to a detail expose a story written by both the mayor and the mayor. i'll give you details of the story as such. can you help us with an approximate date? >> yeah. summer, 2004. >> thank you. go back to the issue of the
9:53 pm
reporting particularly in the context of your supplementary statements. you refer in your fact statement to a few articles in the sun don't you? >> do i? what do i say? >> well, look at it. what paragraph is it? >> paragraph 17, towards the bottom of that paragraph. >> yeah. >> this is the second stage. >> it is, yes. >> thank you. >> i don't really want to go
9:54 pm
over too much of the details of this unless you're content i do so. you've seen, i think, the article in the sun on the 3rd of november. and first of all, it shows a fixture. it says that you're holding hands with someone. if you look at the paragraph i'm not giving expert photographs it looks like you're holding hands. >> correct. you can see the palm of her hand. >> yes. >> is the woman in the photograph correctly depicted? >> i can't -- >> right. it's separately -- we provided it to you separately.
9:55 pm
>> so there's three girls in this article, three pictures. three girls. >> we're looking at the one at the bottom of the page. >> sorry, two girls. >> yes, yes. they're both the same girl. >> that is the same girl, yes. >> to me, to be clear the article on the following day, the 4th of november has some different young girl. >> and there's a picture of me and a girl that is not the same girl. in fact, i have no idea who she is. >> that's right. >> and one of the reasons why they aren't able to find any pictures of me and my new german girlfriend is because i haven't got one. so they've had to find a picture of me and some girl. >> to be fair to the article, i'm just looking at what it says and not any inferences or innuendo which may be gone from
9:56 pm
it. this woman is not described as your girlfriend, is she? >> you want me to read the whole thing now? >> well, i think you've had the chance to look at it. she's not described as your girlfriend, is she? >> i've not seen that before. >> i'm sure about that then he ought to have a chance. >> yes. >> well, to me just the article hugh and new girl three weeks before baby. maybe i'm reading a different language. >> okay. i'm just trying to be fair to the authors of this piece, mr. grant. to make a judgment -- >> you've been very, very fair to news international and to associated today. >> i hope i've been fair to everybody. >> you told me backstage you were -- >> i hate to see you googling.
9:57 pm
>> let me continue to bowl you straight bowls. it reports the woman's denial that this is other than a friend, doesn't it? >> it does. right down there in the bottom line. at the end of the article. >> then it does add in the middle a local report which is the report from a german magazine build? >> correct. which said after this dinner, this innocent dinner i had with this german girl. not this one but on the page before that i had a completely innocent dinner and dropped her off on the taxi because the paparazzi is board with a man getting into a taxi with a girl. either they invented passionate taxi in the kissing because there was none. i'm on the road here. this is tittle tattle and it's a
9:58 pm
big stick to beat me on the head because of the birth of my daughter and that's why i'm here in front of the leveson committee and a much too young girl and even though she denied it was in all these papers. >> i'm seeking to analyze what appears in this article and receive your comment upon it and you've kindly given me that. >> can i just ask you, what's the position of the papers in germany? have they reported you in the way in which you've complained about being -- >> yes, yes. it wouldn't have been germany. it's everywhere. i say in my main statement, you know, this is one of the problems when something is misreported, it's a splatters around the internet. this is a fact that i have a
9:59 pm
21-year-old german girlfriend and it doesn't matter unless it's used a stick to beat me again and again and it does become a little wearying and you wished they bothered to ask me or bothered to listen to the girl's denials. >> and is it possible to do something about this in germany? >> it's not -- it's really not a big -- it's not like it's libelous. i was merely giving an example of the use of misreporting to beat somebody up. it was an agenda to beat someone up. >> i understand the point entirely but i'm trying to understand what i can put a box around in this country whether by way of recommendation or
10:00 pm
otherwise and what impact that might have elsewhere in the world to somebody who isn't merely a national figure but has international status. you see the point -- >> i think so. >> i'm grappling with. >> well, if the story emanates from abroad, which this one did, your recommendation, whatever it might be, would have to be, you know, that you at least have to check the fact or -- i mean, it is hard for me to believe i'm going to quarrel over a piece of tittle tattle it. it doesn't matter that much. >> i'm not concerned about this particular article in terms of. indeed, as you probably know, i'm not going to -- this isn't what this inquiry is about. who and what circumstance they
10:01 pm
knew. and it's not the whole question of regulation of the press in this country and that culture and practices. >> yeah. >> but also how that has impacted or affected by what happens abroad or what happens on the internet. the questioner asked this morning. >> hmmm. >> so i'm just trying to paint a bigger picture. >> all i can say is when it comes to stories being copied around the world, they are copied from the internet. and they're particularly copied if they come from a website that belongs to a newspaper because newspapers are generally considered to have a certain gravitas and the news-gathering techniques to have a certain professionalism. often, that may be a mistaken assumption. but that is why -- you know, for the story is on a newspaper
10:02 pm
website, it will scatter much faster and if it's on someone's blog or a tweet or something like that. i can sense i haven't answered your question. >> no. my question is really aimed at the impact that i can have on other press activity in relation to somebody with a reputation simply by doing what i can do in this country. >> well, there's obviously there's nothing you can do outside of this country. >> i agree. >> but if you made our press behave, then they wouldn't be so damage when they spread on the internet. >> and then the question arises where stories emanate from. i mean, one of the stories you've talked about actually -- i think you said it emanated initially in america but whether it went to america from here or with where, i don't know. >> well, that is always
10:03 pm
difficult to know. >> yeah. >> i'm just trying to grapple with the whole problem. that's all. and i'm certainly not focusing on individual stories. >> yeah. >> for the reasons that you understand. >> yeah, yeah. >> okay. we'll move off the second written statement. i'm going to cover now some matters of opinion and try and look at the bigger picture. before i do that, can i ask you some questions about publicity and publicity. >> yeah. >> you've referred at least once to a publicity you have in the u.s.; is that right? >> yeah, how many publicists do you have around the world? >> well, i have one. they're in new york. and i only use them sporadically when films come out and they're not -- they're like antipublicists. they're not for getting
10:04 pm
publicity but for -- when a film will be coming out warner brothers will be desperate for you to do everything in america and the job of my publicist to pay them not very much money. he's not doing that. he might do that because that's a classy one. that's all they're there for. and between films, i don't pay them. they go on hiatus and they knew nothing about any of this until they kept getting calls from british tabloids saying he had a baby. >> it's not their function to advise you in relation to your dealings with the press? >> it is in relation in my relation with dealing with press in america when a film comes out. >> yes. >> and a little bit around the world. they tried to be experts on what a tv show to do if you're on a world tour in russia. >> right. >> and to be absolutely honest they throw up their hands when it comes to britain. they have no advice. it's uncontrollable.
10:05 pm
>> okay. we did see in relation to that little piece of the sun about your health, your publicist declined to comment. >> they called my -- >> just wait for the question. >> yes. >> it looks as if likely or wrongly someone in the sun telephoned your assistant or your publicist for comment and quite rightly got no comment. is that a fair inference. >> or they phoned my assistant in london who's an executive assistant. she's fantastic. but she's not a publicist. >> it's a stand p.a. >> right. >> and it's really not part of her role to advise you in relation to your dealings with the press? >> not at all. in terms of british press, i have no advice yet myself. >> right.
10:06 pm
if, for example, you give an interview to the press, you consult your own advisor, no one else; is that correct? >> you're talking about the british press? >> yes. >> well, in 17 years i've only given two interviews to the british press. the rest have either been brought in from abroad -- >> yes. >> or invented. so the question doesn't really arise. >> yes. you carried one interview, i think, in 2002, which has been -- [inaudible] >> it relates with sandra bullock. [inaudible] >> the question --
10:07 pm
[inaudible] >> that people are interested in the film to answer -- [inaudible] i do understand -- [inaudible] >> curiosity -- >> it doesn't mean to say you can obtain that information illegally? >> no. >> and then you continue, when i think about actors i know -- i'd much rather who they're shagdz than what film their doing next? >> that remains true. but again as i say -- i don't mean that information should be obtained illegally. >> and then you -- you go on
10:08 pm
probably into an area which is -- >> i know it was given -- that quote comes from, i think, a press conference with a thing called the hollywood foreign press association the people who control the golden globes. and it's always a very lighthearted occasion. and i always try to give lighthearted answers and as i say, in my main statement prior to about a year ago, if the subject of the british tabloids came up in an interview, i took the line that everyone else in the country who's ever been in the crosshairs of british tabloids will take which is to give a neutral answer or a flippant answer. to speak out and criticize is to invite a terrible rainstorm on your head so i think the answer you're referring to is one of those flippant answers. >> well, i assumed it was,
10:09 pm
mr. grant, that's why i wasn't going to read it out. you quite rightly say whatever the interests of the public may be in your private life, that cannot justify the use of illegal or unethical news-gathering methods; is that correct? >> right. >> what happens if information has eventually entered the public domain and then once it's in the public domain, the press want to comment on it? is it fair and right for them to do that in your view? >> i think not. i always thought they obtained the information illegally and unethically. why should i help them because first of all their motive was profit. it's never public interest. it's profit. someone is making money out of this. so why would i help them invading my privacy. >> it's probably my fault for asking the question with not ultimate precision.
10:10 pm
but we see it a little bit in microcosm in relation to the recent history. that for whatever reason "the daily mail" published, you made your point in relation to how "the daily mail" you think obtained relevant information and they didn't act on it and eventually it comes out in the united states of america. we don't know on what basis they obtained the information after that story. but once it's out in the public domain, it's out in the public domain. and so everyone else from the press can now comment on the story which is by definition in the public domain. would you agree with that? >> that's right. and from experience, i know that not only will they comment but they'll write it with news with little embellishment. they will say a friend tells us or an insider tells us or an insider tells us those are usually invented. they almost never exist. they will create a whole new story based on the original story that could have a very
10:11 pm
wrong or twisted slant to it. hence, my decision to put out a statement to try to put out the real facts. >> yeah. you've added a sort of extra dimension, quite rightly, that we've got a story which is now in the public domain with some clear -- [inaudible] >> how the american newspaper obtained the story. >> yeah. >> we simply don't know. once it's in the public domain there it's in the public domain across the world and now the press here comments upon it. your point is what they're not simply to do is embellish the story or fix the news which is untrue. let's agree about that. but if they don't -- if they stop short of doing that and they don't embellish but all they do is comment on you -- >> uh-huh. >> maybe in a way that you don't like, do you have a problem with that? >> no. i don't mind -- listen, i'm
10:12 pm
ready for comments i don't like. believe me. i'm very really ready for that. i've experienced it. i nash my teeth when those adverse comments or hatchet jobs are based on among facts or lazy journalism like you have a 21-year-old girlfriend or it was cruel for him to only visit for a half hour when, in fact, i was being kind. i mean, i was trying to protect the mother of my child. that's annoying. but, of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion. >> yes. obviously, the inquiry needs to consider this issue of embellishment which is incorrect and that can be corrected or addressed. one way it can be corrected is that you can bring proceedings in defamation. >> yeah. >> what about explaining to the pcc about recent events. have you thought about doing
10:13 pm
that? >> i experienced, as you saw, way back in 1996, it's not a very positive one. and they took a year so decide it was a wrongful thing for a hospital to give out my medical records. in the case of recent events, my lawyer did -- before he took out the injunction, while we were trying to get rid of a strategy to get rid of all these paparazzi and reporters who were besieging the mother of my child's house and making her life miserable and following her, he did send a warning letter to the newspapers and he sent it by the pcc and there was a 10% dip in activity outside of the house for maybe 12 hours and then it was back to normal. so my verdict on their contribution to this was that they were ineffectual. >> now, another -- another
10:14 pm
factor in your case which i say adds -- >> i'm sorry. mr. jay, i would just comment on that. the pcc at the moment is monitoring or provides a service certain to the press. but that won't ever touch paparazzi, the freelance paparazzi, right? so one of the things one would have to think about whether one could devise assistance irrespective if you're employed by a newspaper? >> yes. you're probably right. or to somehow kill the market
10:15 pm
for those pictures. i think, you know, there would be no rogue paparazzi if there wasn't big national papers paying for their picture. and so i'm not quite sure which end of that do you attack first. >> so the question then arises, which goes back to the questions asked about international interests because one could say -- one could do something about in pictures in this country, one wouldn't be able to regulate the pictures abroad. >> that is true. that is true. but i think -- if i'm right, in france, there's laws -- for instance, you can't take someone's picture in a public place. and that does give a much more humane, civilized existence to
10:16 pm
people in the public eye despite the fact that presumably those pictures could come back in from abroad. is that what you're saying? >> there are problems one could think about the domestic market which is i'm mainly obviously focused on. but i have in view someone of the public perspective because of the interest that was shown internationally. >> yeah. >> and i'm wondering how that plays in the picture? >> i don't know the answer to your question i'm afraid in terms of international. all i can tell you is that not just in my opinion but in the opinion of other people who are quite well-known around the world, for instance, sometimes do tours, publicity tours with a film or whatever they're unanimous in saying by far and away the worst territory to any
10:17 pm
kind of publicity is this one. >> and maybe that's right. and maybe, therefore, i just shouldn't worry. i'm just looking for your assistance. that's all. >> well, i think that's right. there's certain pockets of quite toxic yellow journalism around the rest of the world but on the whole it's still done with a certain elegance, an elegance we've lost in the last 30 years in this country. >> thank you. one comment you haven't spared was directed to "the daily mail." rather than in context of the amanda butell, one strips away the factual inaccuracies
10:18 pm
particularly with respect to the german woman and you made your point about that. do you have any other broader objection to her piece notwithstanding that it is -- it is due very critical of you. on a human level, you say, of course, i do. i don't like to read that sort of stuff. but we're talking on our piece sort of i think more abstractly in terms of where the boundaries should be drawn in terms of regulating these pieces 'cause after all, all she is doing is exercising her right to comment. >> right. well, that's fine. >> that's fine, is it? >> it's fine. it's sad that it's based on so much lazy reporting. >> uh-huh. okay. >> a visit to the baby and didn't know the fact. but and it is possible that many of my friends, professors of journalism have range me up and said it's clearly a deliberate hatchet job because you're speaking against tabloid press, that may be true. but i was reluctant even to talk about it in a statement because
10:19 pm
i've always felt that a comment is a comment and it's really not cool to comment on it. but i was persuaded because of this theory that it might be a stick to beat me with because i'm doing this, that maybe it was relevant. >> yes, yes. well, i put in the equation three other articles which are admittedly not couched in the same language which make the same sort of point about you and we're weighing on quite a lot of material on a similar nature which you haven't seen all of them. >> i haven't seen all of them, thank god, but you keep coming back to this point, they are based largely on a lot of misreporting. >> yes. >> but for the past, that's not based on this reporting it's perfectly fine to hate me. i have become very accustomed to
10:20 pm
that. it's been extremely fashionable for a long time and that is what i expect in this country. >> now, mr. grant, we probably got another half an hour. i'm going to give you the opportunity now -- as i've given previous witnesses. >> yeah. >> to as it were elaborate your opinion, and your opinion is contained mainly in your first statement beginning of 39 and 40. >> yeah. >> this is where i go through -- >> and what i'd like to do with you and make sure we've got your point, okay and we're not skating over them. >> uh-huh. >> and you have them in mind. and your first point -- when i think we'll probably all agree
10:21 pm
with celebrities and politicians slap the hands with newspapers -- and you've given us some examples and some of the examples you've given human beings who will testify before this inquiry very shortly. >> yeah. i talk about quickly the vulnerable people, who have been victims of trauma such as the dowlers who we saw earlier today. or the victims of the london bombings or families of soldiers killed in afghanistan. and then i talk about collateral damage. >> yes. >> where my phone is hacked but so is my assistant's my, you know, my brother's my father's whatever it might be. innocent people having their privacy invaded just because they're in the collateral damage. and then i talk about innocent people who have been monstered by the press like christopher
10:22 pm
jefferies or robert or madeleine mccann whose threats are guilty of guilty crimes -- >> you didn't mean madeleine, you mean her parents. >> i'm sorry. i apologize. >> i understand. >> i only corrected not to get at you but i don't want anyone to think you said that. >> well, i did and i was wrong. >> and then you deal with the issue of whether egregious of privacy were committed by "news of the world" and you express your opinion about that. here you're hitting on one of the central points of this inquiry. this is what we're trying to investigate. but we're looking at all the evidence and we've heard your position on that and you've given direct evidence in relation to it and everything he says will be taken fully into
10:23 pm
account. >> yes. and i'd just like to echo from what i heard from one of the witnesses that given the cross-fertilization of journalists in the tabloid world, it's highly unlikely that they only practice dark arts for one title. they are always swapping titles and i can't believe they didn't practice those arts in other places as well. >> and the third is throwing the baby out with the bath water point. and could you -- could you elaborate on that, in your own words. what you're getting on there? >> well, it is a commonly voiced opinion that you cannot in any way regulate or prove, legislate
10:24 pm
for the worst practices of the worst journalists in this country without damaging free speech, without muzzling proper journalism. and the matter is be careful with throwing the baby out with the bath water and i've always said that i don't think it's that difficult to tell the difference between what is bath water and what is a baby. most people it's bloody obvious. and that i've always thought that you just simply take the baby, which in this case is excellent journalism. we're lucky to have some of the best in the world in this country out of the bath and let the bath water run out. >> okay. >> it's a very difficult distinction to make what's good journalism and what's not. i don't say it's black and white. it's a gray area.
10:25 pm
>> thank you. and the fifth message is to a related point overregulation will lead to the tyranny. can i ask you, please, sir, about what your positive proposals would be in relation to best regulation. >> it's not -- >> say it again. >> you're on four, i think. any attempt to regulate the press means we're heading for zimbabwe which is another one of these arguments with throwing the baby out with the bath water. >> yes. >> i simply make the point that it's way too simplistic and, two, it's very insincere and used by tabloid newspapers to protect their lucrative business model which is after all almost no journalism no. it's mainly the appropriation usually through illegal means of citizens and fundamental rights
10:26 pm
of privacy to sell them for profit. and this argument that you can't in any way deal with that without us living in a state like zimbabwe is not absurd but it's highly convenient for them. there's many examples of regulation between zimbabwe and being the total free for all that we have for you. >> i think -- i think this inquiry -- if you're able to assist to the extent that it degradations in the middle of this sector. no one is suggesting having any kind of form of regulation which will result with zimbabwe or tyranny. we're dealing with something much less extensive than that. >> you are, yes. >> but can you help us suggestions?
10:27 pm
>> there are forms of -- if you take one end of the scale, safe regulations and you take it to the other end of the scale, no self-regulation, there are various gradations of what some that i call coregulation which would be regulation by a -- say a panel that would be comprised of partly journalists but partly also nonjournalists in the field who would draw up a code of he haddics and would apply it with proper sanctions, meaning sanctions, either financial or in terms of apologies. ..
10:28 pm
to walk away. what i think of that you could have wonderful new regulations that would find some appalling abuse by the paper said you will find 200,000 pounds. so somewhere there has to be a little bit of statute to make >>ings meaningful. but there are people much moreth experter on this than me and imo assure you will ber calling on g them. secure are absolutely right we will be calling a range of people with ideaspeople, certaiy perspective, it's abundantly clear this is a topic, and, obviously, suffered as you described as the expense you described, whether justified or not, and, therefore, i wanted to make sure that you had the opportunity to say anything he wanted to say on the subject. >> i come to that sort of at the
10:29 pm
end of my statement. that's were i think there are many ways could make f1 happy. the press is after all the only industry in this country that have a profound influence over other people, our citizens that is regulated only by its cell. there's no other industry like that, whether it is medicine or advertising. it's all regulated, and no one calls for those regulators to be tougher than press. and yet when it comes to themselves, no regulation. which although and love the idea which would be fantastic if it worked, have absolutely been shown not to have worked for the last 20 or 30 years. we've had so many last chance saloons and it's been a failure. this is the big opportunity now, this inquiry, in my opinion. >> thank you. privacy law under the human [inats act -- you made the pint
10:30 pm
..] >> yes. there's a lot the squealing again from the tabloid press about these injunctions and so one. and they say it muzzled the press and it is at a chilling effect. and just make the point, first of all, no one think is prosecuting "the guardian." secondly, if the public answers defense, why in the case of many vast majorities of these injunction cases to the newspaper in question not even bother to turn up to defend their piece on the grounds of public interest. the judge sits there and says worth the paper? they don't turn out. i ask is that because there's no public interest? i think we all know the answer to that. and i make the point, ultimately it all comes down to public interest and who is better to
10:31 pm
decide whether a piece of journalism is in the public interest or not. would that be a judge or would it be the tabloid editor who stands to profit commercially from the peace? to me it is the judge, and i would argue that most of the judgments made in these injunction cases have been right, nor have they been biased. we saw that in the case recently. the judges are quite ready to -- all this fuss from at least the tabloid in from the british press about these injunctions is bogus and convenient. >> this leads into the related point -- >> i am fine with that. >> you say they don't.
10:32 pm
let's see what happens to that. the nation to appear have been reviewed by single or justice, but here we understand the accusation of being reviewed. number seven, privacy, can only be a rich man toy. that depends a bit on the survival of conditional theory, is that? >> i think it depends on that and on establishing proper replication pashtun regulation. you should be able to go straight to the regulator and skip the whole court process, especially if you're not a person of means. i think they'll been those wonderful thing to come out of this inquiry is proper regulated to get access to justice of the kind that having to go through the court. but there will always be cases, we will have to go through the courts, and when they do it is
10:33 pm
scandalous, in my opinion, that this will now be, if what is going through parliament now in the back of the jackson report happens, people without great means will be excluded from justice. if you look at the dowlers, use the cfa in their phone hacking case against "news of the world," they would not have been able to make that case. they would not have been able to prosecute that case without cfa. jeffries was a man wrongly accused of the murder in brussels, or maligned by the press. had to use the cfa to get justice, sorrow of pain, same thing. without cfa, those people have no justice. and this whole campaign to restrict use of cfa has been very heavily pushed by the tabloid press. and the government in its infinite obedience of the tabloid press has simply said yes, fine.
10:34 pm
>> okay, thank you. clear on that point, mr. grant. the next point that exposé carry a public interest defense, i think we party major position clear, clear on that. but please say whatever you wish to say in addition. >> i did say that there is certainly cases where there is a public interest defense, politician, campaign on family value platform. in his obligations, and he's been, you know, having extramarital affair or whatever, i addressed that with a nun, sleep with prostitutes do we need to know about it because he is a hypocrite. but i think that the vast majority of these exposés peoples sex lives are not in the public interest and that the
10:35 pm
public interest defense offered by tabloid newspapers are very flimsy at best. they'll say he trades on his reputation, but he doesn't. he trades to me quickly on the fact he's a brilliant football. of anyone is buying a pair of his but because they think he's a great family man. i think they're buying it because he has won lots of trophies for majesty's united. and i read an independent this point, apparently i do the same thing. i trade on my good name and, therefore, there's a public interest defense going into my private life. but i wasn't aware i traded on my good name. i've never had a good name. [laughter] and it's made absolutely no difference at all. i was the man arrested with a prostitute and the film still made tons of money. it doesn't matter. >> okay. i think that's very clear, mr. grant.
10:36 pm
myth number nine, this is a sort of development about the impact idea speech yes, it's another very common defense of what i would call the privacy invasion industry, some people call it the tabloid press, that what i see is a myth, people like me want to be in the papers and, therefore, our objections to privacy intrusions are hypocritical. and i go on to some length, explaining how that is a myth, that in my business, for instance, what i need is not to be in "the daily mail" or the mayor, it's to make enjoyable films. that is 85% of success. about 10% of the success is the film is well marketed. soma becomes a good trader or tv spot. right at the end of a 5% of the success might be just before the
10:37 pm
film comes out you bang the drum a bit and a bit of publicity. quite minor, and you are under an obligation to do it. and not just, sometimes its contractual but more times it's just a moral obligation. someone put up a lot of money for the films. hundreds, sometimes thousands have worked on this for over year. if you didn't do a bit of publicity you would be a monster. you would be -- people would hate you. so you got to do a bit. but it's only 5% of what contribute to success in the film. and within that 5%, how much of that is tabloid newspapers, or even newspapers at all. very little. what everyone does not is broadcast media. everyone is in television and radio. and if tabloid were so important to the success of the film or success of an actor or a singer, why is it, for instance, none of us in the large ensemble cast actually took to any tabloid
10:38 pm
newspaper at all when that film was released and the film is still a gigantic? the theory put about by tabloid paper that they are responsible for success films and the create stars. it is entirely in spirit. either they are mad, arrogance, this funny cocoon of self-importance, or it's just highly convenient because it gives them a chance to say if anyone criticizes us, it's hypocritical. >> isn't it, particularly one goes back towards the start of your successful part of your career, the early 1990s, didn't it help your career that you were quite constantly in the public eye? didn't that make you more attractive to future filmmakers possibly? >> no. i would argue, what may be attracted to the film makers was for weddings and feel, pressure
10:39 pm
a couple of felt like they said i was arrested with a prostitute, you couldn't call the positive press, and i'm still very high level because someone had made money. in terms of a career, that's all studios cared about. and audiences only care about whether the film is intended or not. i can to examples of films that have wall-to-wall tabloid covers before the come out and still die at the box office because they're not entertaining. it is a big myth. and i personally have actually argued with my lawyer over the years when making settlements, libel or whatever with papers saying please, forgive me, forget an apology. just make them give an undertaking never to mention my name again. and i can bring you a list of hundreds of people in the public eye in this country who would happily sign up for that. it's such a myth to say we wanted so badly, we are also being, we're dying to be in the paper. it's the last thing anybody wants is to be in a british tabloid newspaper. so long as the work you're doing at that moment is okay.
10:40 pm
>> you deal with i suppose one aspect or another aspect -- [inaudible] understatement. >> yeah. >> what is the consideration, if you do an interview with a paper or magazine, you are saying here, well, it doesn't give any lifelong license to publish whatever you like about this subject matter. that, of course, must be right as a matter of common sense. but it surely gives some license to comments, possibly unfavorably on the rest of the and to speak with you are, of course, that would be fine, absolutely fun.
10:41 pm
but i'm talking here about intrusion. and i have heard the defense quite frequently from tabloid papers, he never talked to your private life, then you have no defense. you have no right to expectation of privacy, which i think is absurd. because anyone, as i told you earlier i think i've only done two interviews with british press, but when anyone does do interview, it is after all a bargain. that paper gets boost in sales they hope and the person giving the interview gives some noise about the forthcoming project. and when it is over, it's over. i would not expect you to come to me ever afterwards and sing i cannot -- [inaudible] i would think you are mad to spend your point is more specifically, having conducted this little contract, it
10:42 pm
certainly doesn't authorize the press subsequently to investigate your unlawful and unethical way, or intrude into your privacy? >> that's what i'm saying, yes, exactly that. i do believe in shrine in our bill of rights, you know, a person's basic -- i don't think you should give that up. >> and the 10th myth is the point -- >> yes. >> you see them glamorizing themselves, oh, well, we might be a bit naughty but, you know, we get the story. but when the story has been obtained by hacking the phone of a murdered schoolgirl or the family of a soldier killed in afghanistan, i don't find that naughty. i find that cowardly and
10:43 pm
bullying and shocking. and most shocking is that this is been allowed to go on for so long with no one putting their hand up and saying, stop, not the police because they're intimidated. not i in peace because they're intimidated, and not a good because they have been intimidated. [inaudible] paragraph 88? >> we sort of went over them. i give you, paragraph 86 in a nutshell is included the issue be unacceptable and illegal to deprive a person of the fundamental human right to privacy, and thus there is a public role. it's not rocket science. the ways i would protect it is one, i would resist the clamor of the privacy stealing industry to close down privacy law as it
10:44 pm
emerged through common law, through the human rights act. and i would disband the pcc and create a proper regulation, which would not only protect people from abuses of privacy or libel of the first, but it would also be there to protect in good trim, this is the other side of all this. i, for instance, and keen on libel reform. i am keen to see good journalism protected as much as i possibly can. i am the reverse of a muscle or, but i personally feel that the license that the tabloid press has had to steal british citizens privacy for the commercial profit very often will vulnerable british citizens is a scandal, that we could government too long have allowed
10:45 pm
it to pass. >> mr. grant, is there anything else you wish to tell the inquiry? we've covered the ground. >> no. it's a strange form of interview in the sense i wish i'd been able to read my two statements out loud first, because we haven't really, it's all been the defending positions in them without anyone saying with the statement as she says. >> i think you will find the statement will be available. >> i hope you will read it. >> they will, mr. grant. further point, i would like to think what you wanted to bring out, you have brought out. if you feel the point -- >> there is one final point. >> please bring it out spent because i'm tired, i wouldn't mind reading it since it's in my statement. it's my conclusion, i guess i don't want to see the end of
10:46 pm
popular print journalism. i would want a country that was fun into power or success but i like and about and would always want to protect the british, difficult and to take the free press is of course the cornerstone of democracy, i have no question about that. i just think that there has been a section of our press that has become, allowed to become talks is over the last 20 or 30 years. its main tactic being bullying and intimidation and blackmail. and i think that needs a lot of courage to stand up to. and i feel it is time, you know, this country has a historic we could record standing up to bullies, and i think it's time they found courage to stand up to this bully now. >> thank you very much. >> okay. >> mr. grant, thank you very much. [inaudible] although you may have felt that
10:47 pm
you're on the back for too often, it was a way of getting the picture a cross so that everybody has had a chance through mr. jay to ask questions, but the thrust of your evidence contained in your statements is clear, and you have no need doubt that i have read it or not paid full attention to it, and will continue to pay attention to it. >> thank you very much. >> right, thank you. anything else? [inaudible] >> just the issue of anonymity if i may. >> well, let mr. grant, return to where he comes from so he can just relax for a moment. >> right. yes? >> earlier you made a ruling on the ninth of november, and if
10:48 pm
anybody was thinking of exercising their right under section 38 to seek any review of that, time expired on wednesday. and since then, of course, there has been a draft and an inky protocol, and i think you invited any further submissions to be with you by last thursday at 5:00. we certainly put in the submissions. i was just raising the matter to see if you wish to confirm the protocol, at anything during the course before -- >> i am happy to do that. i think that essentially the points, many of the points we made eye take on board. i'm happy to clarify some things, if they need clarifying. i'm not entirely sure they do. but i would be surprised if anything in the protocol could
10:49 pm
impact on the fundamental decisions i made in my ruling. but if there's anything that needs to be done tomorrow, i'll do it. i think there are two slightly separate issues. there's that anonymity that i've granted to one of mr. hsu barnes clients who i know is h. j. k. and there is some knock on consequences about how we're going to do with his evidence in the absence of anybody saying anything to the contrary. i propose to maintain that anonymity, and to allow him to give evidence in a way that ensures it. that will require taking certain measures, for example, he is likely to give evidence in a cleared inquiry come obviously the participant of lawyers we present.
10:50 pm
but otherwise nobody. i'm likely not to have a running transcript to publish a transcript as soon thereafter as possible in case something emerges that needs to be redacted. in that way i have, his evidence will be put in the public domain with any form that doesn't damage the anonymity have sought and which i found to be justifiable picking anybody has any comment about that, i appreciate you have only recently seen the suggestions in that regard i'd be very, very interested to hear them. as regards other people, i'll make sure that i've got the final protocol for you to look at tomorrow. but as i say, i don't think it should really make a difference to whether or not there is an issue that is worthy of
10:51 pm
ventilation in the divisional court, which, of course, is your decision entirely. >> a couple of points. first, we just received submissions from the metropolitan police relationship the anonymity protocol. just this afternoon, so those will have to be considered. >> now i'm about to come out. i will say the reason there hasn't been won is because it was only up to the end of literally the end of friday that i saw the last one but i wasn't sure what got them all. indeed, now you heard i haven't gotten them all and i did want to for everything and tell actually heard from everybody. so that's, isa limit on defense, which i was going to say anything about. anything else, mr. jay? >> in relation to h. j. k., one issue, whether when he gives his evidence he will not give evidence in relation to any
10:52 pm
named newspaper. in other words, that will be redacted out. >> yes. i've made it clear, i think if nonot in a ruling, and i in argument that in relation to any anonymous witness, in order to protect the position of any of the media, it would be quite wrong to allow names or titles to be identified. i'm not going to make decisions about names and titles, everybody knows i'm looking cost of an practices and ethics across the piece, which is why my questions to mr. grant were of general rather than specific topics. and i would adopt the same process for hjk. so that's a matter of anybody of concern to anybody, then they
10:53 pm
should say so. thank you. well, thank you very much in the. i repeat my thanks. i will do all the witnesses, particularly those who have come as all have today voluntarily. and thank you very much. >> all rise. >> a reminder, british parliament is in its winter recess and returns in january. prime minister david cameron will be back at the british house of commons january 11th to take questions from members as it does every wednesday that parliament is in session. that is live from london at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span2. >> up next a world bank official look at the world economic
10:54 pm
outlook and then a ceremony marking 23 years since the pan employed 103 bombing. later conversation about religion and politics in the u.s. >> thursday on washington journal a discussion on the states that will be affected by the keystone pipeline. matt kirk of the u.s. chamber of commerce is our guest. then we will talk to barry lynn of americans united for the separation of church and state. his book on and the economy. your calls in the men's line every morning starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. later, here on c-span2, the national black caucus of state legislators will discuss job training and education programs. that is at 10:00 a.m. eastern. >> here is what users are saying
10:55 pm
>> this is an application is fast, easy-to-use, and visually appealing and the audio quality is convincingly killer. great application and insanely great deal considering it is also free. it took me ten seconds to learn how to use it. >> anytime, anywhere, streaming audio as well as all three television networks, including live coverage of commerce. you can also listen to our interview programs including q&a , newsmakers, the communicators, and afterwards. >> a look at the debt crisis in europe. the increase in china and the role of u.s. economy. the carnegie endowment for international peace hosts this discussion on the global economic outlook. it is an hour and 45 minutes.
10:56 pm
>> good morning ladies and sullen. thank you very much for joining us here at carnegie today. to discuss the global economic outlook. now, because emerging markets have accounted for the bulk of global economic growth over the last five years we will come at this global outlook session a little different. we will be putting the emerging-market beginning with china and the smallest. and so our expert panel today includes world-renowned experts on emerging markets and on china beginning with my friend, former world bank colleague, and former
10:57 pm
world bank, he is the co-lead. the head of the global economic analysis group at the world bank , and then to my right a senior associate in the asia program at the carnegie endowment and was for many years director in beijing for the world bank. he was also director for russia, another very important world bank client. and then to my left, yet another world bank, peterborough chilly, who is a professor and an associate of the carnegie endowment and also when the beijing office of the world bank or early go but
10:58 pm
the kick this session off with some remarks on the to those 11 record and particularly on the crisis of the eurozone which is so central to the outlook. a disappointment because of the slowing from the fast pace of 2010 and because it leads the advanced countries well below the pre great recession trend, but 2011 was not a disaster either. growth in the world was in line with the ten year. prices average. largely because emerging-market continued to power ahead so that this low of around midyear. moreover, although the u.s. economy grew at half the rate of
10:59 pm
2010, in 2011 it has recovered, rhee gathered some speed, its recovery gathered some steam after the summer lull. the u.s. corporate sector is in good financial shape, and judging by the events of the luster to four hours in much better shape than the u.s. political system. however, 2011 is also the year that the euro crisis became deeper and deeper. end up with italy now read often it it represents a qualitative level of risk for the global economy. all five, greece, ireland, italy, portugal, and spain, gdp decline in the third quarter.

Tonight From Washington
CSPAN December 21, 2011 8:00pm-11:00pm EST

News/Business. News.

TOPIC FREQUENCY Us 23, U.s. 7, Mr. Grant 7, London 7, America 7, Milly 5, Zimbabwe 4, Germany 4, Mr. Jay 3, New York 3, China 3, Mr. Lewis 2, Ben 2, H. J. K. 2, Amanda Butell 2, Italy 2, Russia 2, The Portland 2, Ireland 2, Paris 2
Network CSPAN
Duration 03:00:00
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel 100 (651 MHz)
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 704
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color

disc Borrow a DVD of this show
info Stream Only
Uploaded by
TV Archive
on 12/22/2011